United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
EXPERT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM D. HAGER PROFFERED BY DEFENDANT
L. ROSENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony of William D. Hager Proffered by
Defendant Proctor Financial [DE 88]. The Court has carefully
reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and Defendant's response
in opposition [DE 98], and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's
Motion is DENIED.
has brought a RESPA claim against Defendant Sun West and a
claim of tortious interference with a business relationship
against Defendant Proctor. See DE 23 & 78. In August
2014, Defendant SunWest obtained force-placed hazard and
flood insurance policies on Plaintiff's property. DE 23
¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that these policies'
premiums were considerably higher than the premiums on
policies that could have been obtained through other
carriers. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff also alleges that
Sun West has outsourced some of its mortgage servicing
activities to Proctor, id. ¶ 26, and that the
Defendants have engaged in a scheme to manipulate the
force-placed insurance policies to allot commission to
Defendant Proctor, id. ¶ 26.
Proctor retained William D. Hager as an insurance expert in
this case. Hager prepared a report in which he opines that:
1) Force placed insurance in and of itself means higher risk,
meaning a higher premium;
2) The $4, 930 annual premium was reasonable and consistent
with the significantly higher risk; and
3) The premiums were not overpriced and were at levels
dictated by statute.
See DE 88-1 at 14-16.
concedes that Hager “has the qualifications necessary
to prepare an appropriate report.” DE 88 at 2.
Plaintiff moves to exclude Hager's opinions and testimony
because (1) Hager's opinions are not based upon any
apparent methodology; (2) Hager's proffered opinions
would not assist the trier of fact; and (3) Hager's
report does not comply with all of Rule 26's
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert
by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may
testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2)
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and